incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

I opened a bug report for this.
On Jul 2, 2008, at 17:57 , Damien Katz wrote:
> Right now, view indexes just grow and grow with each new index
> update. Since they are just indexes, and not the data itself,
> compaction is simply a matter of deleting the index files.
>
> Also, the current Btree implementation isn't completely self
> balanacing. It misses a balancing condition, partially for
> efficiency (it's an expensive balancing operation), and for
> expediency. It was easier to not implement it and gets the general
> case perormance boost.
>
> The thing about this is, the btree code can remain as is if the
> indexing compaction just recopies the map values (and back indexes)
> and recomputes the reduction values. That's a very simple design,
> however, if the btree is completely self balancing, then the btree
> can be copied on a node by node basis, instead of a value by value
> basis, and the reduction values need not be recomputed all. This
> will make the compaction significantly faster overall.
> On Jul 2, 2008, at 3:08 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>> Hello everybody,
>> this thread is meant to collect missing work items (features and
>> bugs) for for our 1.0 release and a discussion about how to split
>> them up between 0.9 and 1.0.
>>
>> Take it away: Damien.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>
>